Results 1 to 20 of 26

Thread: Proposed change to TIR table....

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,717

    Default Proposed change to TIR table....

    I'm possibly encouraged by the proposed change to the TIR table for STU. But I find the notes wording confusing:

    Turbocharged AWD/RWD cars must deduct 2 mm from this table.

    It could be argued that "deduct 2mm" may mean use the weight of a 2mm smaller TIR. Instead I'd propose the following wording:

    Turbocharged AWD/RWD cars must either reduce their TIR size by 2mm for a given weight, or keep the same TIR size and increase base weight to the equivalent of a 2mm larger TIR.

    Either that or put an asterisk TIR size in the chart for Turbocharged AWD/RWD STU cars.
    Last edited by Z3_GoCar; 11-15-2012 at 12:32 AM.
    STU BMW Z3 2.5liter

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,381

    Default

    I'm sure the STAC/CRB is opened minded on it - after all, we want to get it "right" - but I'm just not sure how that's really any different. Whether you pick a weight and then a TIR then reduce the TIR by 2mm for AWD/RWD, or if you pick a TIR then the weight then reduce the TIR by 2mm, what's really the difference?

    We just want to ensure the intent is clear: regardless of what line you pick, if you have RWD or AWD you'll have to use a TIR that's 2mm smaller based on the minimum weight of your car.

    GA

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Houston-ish
    Posts
    932

    Default

    Add another column to the same table showing either:

    separate FWD and AWD/RWD weights with one TIR diameter,
    OR
    show one weight listing with a TIR diameters for FWD and for RWD/AWD.

    It just makes it all that much clearer.
    Houston Region
    STU Nissan 240SX
    EProd RX7

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt93SE View Post
    Add another column to the same table showing either:
    No, I don't think we want to get into that (IMO). That table is purely to spec baseline TIR vs weight; if we added in another column then we need to add in all the other class adders/subtractors such as struts, moved suspension points, and so forth.

    I may, however, look into summarizing all the adders/subtractors into a common area at the end. - GA

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Houston-ish
    Posts
    932

    Default

    I think you're overhtinking it at that point. the chart was (and still is) the baseline weight for each particular chassis.
    want to make absolutely clear on it? then stick a big bold disclaimer above or below the table mentioning these are the baselines and all other adders/subtracters still apply.
    Houston Region
    STU Nissan 240SX
    EProd RX7

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,381

    Default

    [QUOTE=Matt93SE;342955the chart was (and still is) the baseline weight for each particular chassis.[/QUOTE]
    The TIR/weight chart? That has absolutely nothing to do with any specific engine or chassis. That chart simply says that if you're running a turbocharged engine, you must weigh XXXX pounds when running a YY mm TIR. You get to pick. All the new reg does is reduce that TIR by 2mm with a RWD or AWD car. - GA

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •